|
Post by rey619 on Nov 21, 2010 8:19:45 GMT -5
I didn't feel it was overly cheating since I didn't have him wrestle again until Wrestle War and the match ended up being mostly mat based. He's now out for the foreseeable future which kind of sucks. - Not at all. Unless the injury is really severe, most wrestlers fight through the pain (with or without painkillers) so that they can at least finish their current program, especially if it's a world title program. If TNM had been a little more sophisticated, it would probably give us the option of pushing the wrestler through a couple of more matches, but then maybe the injury would be graver.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Dec 17, 2010 17:27:57 GMT -5
I think you can let a guy work through an injury if you lower their workrate appropriately. Could you wrestle with a torn achilles tendon? Maybe, they come in varying degrees of effect, but let's say yes. I don't think most people could go fourteen minutes but Mick Foley is a special case. Also, like you said, the match was less intense than his normal style.
That being said, I don't think Sting vs. Cactus w/ torn achilles could get you ***, which is why I suggested lowering the workrate to represent injuries. Once again though, it IS Mick Foley, so who knows.
For pure TNM-related talk, I've run a couple of Cactus Jack vs. Bam Bam Bigelow feuds in different TNM circuits. Lots of hardcore stuff and lots of **** matches. Those guys seem like they would have worked great together in real life too.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Dec 19, 2010 11:35:35 GMT -5
Good PPV.
I wonder if Sting might see the beginnings of a heel turn by being driving to such brutality? Or maybe he'll feel sorry but his next opponent will give him crap about it?
Looks like Rick Rude will be the first one out of the Dangerous Alliance as it presumably begins to fall apart after the War Games loss.
Curious to see what you do with Liger.
|
|
|
Post by rey619 on Dec 19, 2010 12:43:31 GMT -5
I think you can let a guy work through an injury if you lower their workrate appropriately. Could you wrestle with a torn achilles tendon? Maybe, they come in varying degrees of effect, but let's say yes. I don't think most people could go fourteen minutes but Mick Foley is a special case. Also, like you said, the match was less intense than his normal style. That being said, I don't think Sting vs. Cactus w/ torn achilles could get you ***, which is why I suggested lowering the workrate to represent injuries. Once again though, it IS Mick Foley, so who knows. I hadn't thought about that before, will definitely do this the next time I want to "postpone" an injury.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Dec 28, 2010 17:51:37 GMT -5
Come back, Josh! I love you.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jan 3, 2011 20:49:57 GMT -5
I don't know why, but I seem to go in spurts. I'm almost done with a couple of cards so I'll more than likely be posting them soon with a few more cards quickly following.
Thanks for the love, Ryan. I can guarantee you that it is mutual.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jul 11, 2011 18:20:46 GMT -5
So will this ever come back? I assume right now you're having too much fun with your WWF circuit.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jul 11, 2011 18:42:59 GMT -5
It is definitely not gone. I still have the TNM, the booking notes, and two halfway written cards. I just got a little too word heavy on the last few cards, and it kind of burnt me out.
I should take a vote to see which circuit was/is enjoyed more. I really liked this WCW, but you're right, WWF has been quite a bit of fun as well.
I take your response here means you preferred WCW? Not that I could/would start writing it up right now, but I am curious. Back in my younger days, I would have tried to write both but that ain't happening.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jul 11, 2011 20:41:50 GMT -5
I take your response here means you preferred WCW? Not that I could/would start writing it up right now, but I am curious. Hmmm...good question. I enjoy both and I don't know if I have a clear preference. You are doing something pretty unique with your style of your WWF and have good storylines going on, but there were storylines here I rather enjoyed too.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jul 11, 2011 22:03:26 GMT -5
It might just be my WWF bias, but I prefer the WWF circuit to this one. The characters are better, and like Liller said, you have a unique feel for that one.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Jul 11, 2011 22:12:15 GMT -5
I prefer WCW. This is a cool time period to see revisited.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jul 12, 2011 13:02:56 GMT -5
I loved WCW around this time. '92 to '94 (when Hogan showed up) was a really fun time to be watching. I hated WCW after Hogan showed up when I was a kid, but now that I look back on it, I can enjoy it as well. Funny how that works.
Since you prefer the WCW circuit, can I take it to mean that you read the WWF as well? Is it just the different roster that you like?
|
|
|
Post by rey619 on Jul 13, 2011 15:32:20 GMT -5
I've finally been able to get more into your WWF circuit (I find it difficult to start watching a circuit which requires some prior knowledge of the time period and what's happened before), so I actually want you to continue with WWF
|
|
epw
Enhancement Talent
Posts: 29
|
Post by epw on Jul 13, 2011 15:35:33 GMT -5
Stick with what your interested in right now. I remember in the past I always used to have feds but kept hitting walls with them. I think if you have both of these, it gives you the option, if you hit a wall in your WWF circuit you can come back to this one for a bit, then switch back. All depends on what your in the mood to write.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jul 13, 2011 16:24:58 GMT -5
I'm definitely not going back to WCW: 1992 right now, was just wondering on the preference of the people reading my stuff.
I'm definitely a proponent of writing whatever holds your interest and that is WWF: 1992 right now.
I agree with you, Rey, that it's hard to start reading a circuit with a history that isn't written down anywhere. It took me buying the 1992 set of Prime Time Wrestling and a bunch of reading to get an idea of where the WWF was at during this time.
Now, back to writing up Prime Time, so I can get WrestleMania out sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Jul 16, 2011 14:33:51 GMT -5
I scan both '92 and '89 WWF and read the supercards. Between those two and '94 WWF, there' a lot of retro WWF going on right now. I started with 1994 first and that is one of my favorite time periods anyhow, so I guess that's why that one stuck the most.
I think I like WCW '92 more because I know almost nothing about any of those guys/that time. I was full-on WWF growing up. But looking at NWA/WCW now, it seems like so much more of an adult promotion. Just cool to see a different era revisited.
I think that's another reason I read every GCW-OS card--I like learning about the old guys.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jul 17, 2011 9:47:15 GMT -5
I think I like WCW '92 more because I know almost nothing about any of those guys/that time. It's interesting that some of us prefer circuits for eras we know while some of us prefer circuits for eras because we don't know them.
|
|